Regina Construction III

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by CCF

Okay - if you would prefer to sub out 'multiple' and replace it with an alternative word, go for it...by all means - but the point still stands.

This is a slippery slope - it starts with one, and now a second proposal is at hand, and then where does it go from there?

Do you believe that New York City (with likely some of the greatest development pressures in the world) would start carving out portions of Central Park? No. What about Vancouver - same issue. Have they started doing anything similar in Stanley Park? Nope! Yet, Regina which has an abundance of inefficiently used land within the downtown believes that eroding at Wascana Park for development is a path with pursuing.

All fair points worthy of public discussion. I'm not a fan of commercial development in the Centre, but I'm pragmatically supportive because as much as people say they care about Wascana, very few are coming forward with the strings-free cash to back-up their claims (e.g.: the UofR's capital campaign is well short of its goal after 5 years of work). And like it or not, the main direct/indirect funder of Wascana (the provincial govt) isn't either. So, we can sit by & watch the College Ave Campus' heritage buildings crumble, or we can accept reality & swallow a tough pill.

There haven't been riots in the streets over provincial funding cuts to the 5 urban parks in the last budget, nor major uproar over the province reviewing the funding of Meewasin & Wascana. Short of people getting out & clearly telling the Prov these cuts aren't acceptable (and either accepting higher taxes, or alternate cuts), the future will see stagnant funding (at best) for Wascana.

If you read the WCA Master Plan, it's clear that there's zero intent for further commercial development... but funding realities may force WCA's hand. I don't like it, but I also don't see people/companies opening their wallets with no strings attached.

CNIB isn't in the same boat as College Ave Campus' heritage buildings. CNIB's building is in terrible shape & needs to be torn down. CNIB could find alternate space outside Wascana for the same/less money... but Brandt can't find as desirable space. Brandt is being opportunistic (I don't blame them for trying) by exploiting CNIB's need & its privileged position of being in Wascana Centre. WCA could show courage & say no to the Brandt/CNIB proposal. They absolutely have the legal authority to do so. Perhaps the public debate over the Conexus deal will give WCA pause for thought.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by Drofmab

All fair points worthy of public discussion. I'm not a fan of commercial development in the Centre, but I'm pragmatically supportive because as much as people say they care about Wascana, very few are coming forward with the strings-free cash to back-up their claims (e.g.: the UofR's capital campaign is well short of its goal after 5 years of work). And like it or not, the main direct/indirect funder of Wascana (the provincial govt) isn't either. So, we can sit by & watch the College Ave Campus' heritage buildings crumble, or we can accept reality & swallow a tough pill.

I think the problem with this is that Conexus' money will literally do nothing to help the park and is a tiny drop in the bucket for College avenue. Not to mention the perversion of university funding for kick backs.

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

I think the problem with this is that Conexus' money will literally do nothing to help the park and is a tiny drop in the bucket for College avenue. Not to mention the perversion of university funding for kick backs.

It may be a tiny drop, but combine the $8million with the estimated addition $10million Conexus is forking over for Darke Hall restorations, the ongoing capital maintenance of shared space, and the fact that the Feds required the UofR to match their $27million, it becomes significantly more. The UofR was nowhere near their fundraising target, so they would have had to cover principle & interest expenses on a mortgage of (conservatively) $15million, just to access the feds' $27million (and they'd still be short funds for the Darke Hall restoration).

I'm not saying allowing a commercial enterprise to locate in Wascana is ideal - it absolutely isn't - but as residents we've tacitly endorsed it by a) allowing the province to chip away at Wascana Centre & UofR funding, b) not putting our personal money where our mouth is (Wascana accepts donations) and c) not getting out & raising hell (if we're truly against this). Maybe a mob of upset citizens will turn up at Wascana Centre Board meetings, and flood MLA & Councillor inboxes demanding that they refuse to approve this project... maybe. But I doubt it.

[UPP]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

I think the problem with this is that Conexus' money will literally do nothing to help the park and is a tiny drop in the bucket for College avenue. Not to mention the perversion of university funding for kick backs.

The U of R is probably the last university in North America to get in to the game of funding kick backs. Like it or not, as Drofmab has stated, public institutions have been forced to look to alternate forms of funding. If people really cared about our public institutions, we'd donate to them.

[StealthGirl]

Originally Posted by CBC

The developers who build subdivisions on the outskirts of the city — places like Harbour Landing and Westerra — already have to pay servicing agreement fees and development levy charges.

It means they foot the bill for infrastructure in any newly developed areas, which includes roads, water, and sewage.

Although in-fill builders have never had to pay such fees, the city says "growth pays for growth" so that's going to change.

Originally, the plan was for such fees to kick in on Jan. 1, 2017, but now they're being delayed for another year.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchew...es-for-regina-in-fill-builders-1.3746500

I don't get why they are delaying implementation. Seems like an election tactic. Don't want to hamper anyone's ability to get re-elected. I don't think that infill should pay the same as they do in new areas where there is no infrastructure, but they should have to pay something.

[Dan0myte]

Originally Posted by Drofmab

CNIB isn't in the same boat as College Ave Campus' heritage buildings. CNIB's building is in terrible shape & needs to be torn down. CNIB could find alternate space outside Wascana for the same/less money... but Brandt can't find as desirable space. Brandt is being opportunistic (I don't blame them for trying) by exploiting CNIB's need & its privileged position of being in Wascana Centre. WCA could show courage & say no to the Brandt/CNIB proposal. They absolutely have the legal authority to do so. Perhaps the public debate over the Conexus deal will give WCA pause for thought.

Looking at this from a "what if" perspective: If CNIB had rebuilt their building years ago with some sort of magical funding from a millionaire donor and it was a beautiful, modern building that exceeded their space needs, there would be nothing stopping them from leasing out part of the building to Brandt for some office space. As both the land and property owners, CNIB can lease as much or as little space out of their building as they see fit. I think CNIB's preference has always been to share their building with other charitable organizations but if push came to shove I think they would take on whichever lessee came along to help pay the bills.

Now in the real world, since the building is a dilapitated mess that's slowly sinking into the ground, no one in their right mind would lease space in there and hence why the Open Door Society got out of there as soon as their lease ran out.

So since this proposal from Brandt is to replace the building with another similar building in the same footprint, this proposal can't be looked at as "New business space in the park" where it's "carving out portions of the park". It's more of it replacing undesirable business space in the park with desirable business space in the park and a charitable organization becomes the main beneficiary.

[Festivus]

Originally Posted by Dan0myte

Looking at this from a "what if" perspective: If CNIB had rebuilt their building years ago with some sort of magical funding from a millionaire donor and it was a beautiful, modern building that exceeded their space needs, there would be nothing stopping them from leasing out part of the building to Brandt for some office space. As both the land and property owners, CNIB can lease as much or as little space out of their building as they see fit. I think CNIB's preference has always been to share their building with other charitable organizations but if push came to shove I think they would take on whichever lessee came along to help pay the bills.

Now in the real world, since the building is a dilapitated mess that's slowly sinking into the ground, no one in their right mind would lease space in there and hence why the Open Door Society got out of there as soon as their lease ran out.

So since this proposal from Brandt is to replace the building with another similar building in the same footprint, this proposal can't be looked at as "New business space in the park" where it's "carving out portions of the park". It's more of it replacing undesirable business space in the park with desirable business space in the park and a charitable organization becomes the main beneficiary.

Provided that the new building isn't an eyesore and s fairly small (3 storeys or under, etc), I have no issue as the CNIB is already there, and this is basically just adding another tenant. The Conexus development is more worrisome to me. As someone else said, it makes me think that Harvard has designs to carve out a portion of the park for corporate use. There's already a business park in Harbour Landing, is Wascana Park next?

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by Dan0myte

Looking at this from a "what if" perspective: If CNIB had rebuilt their building years ago with some sort of magical funding from a millionaire donor and it was a beautiful, modern building that exceeded their space needs, there would be nothing stopping them from leasing out part of the building to Brandt for some office space. As both the land and property owners, CNIB can lease as much or as little space out of their building as they see fit. I think CNIB's preference has always been to share their building with other charitable organizations but if push came to shove I think they would take on whichever lessee came along to help pay the bills.

Now in the real world, since the building is a dilapitated mess that's slowly sinking into the ground, no one in their right mind would lease space in there and hence why the Open Door Society got out of there as soon as their lease ran out.

So since this proposal from Brandt is to replace the building with another similar building in the same footprint, this proposal can't be looked at as "New business space in the park" where it's "carving out portions of the park". It's more of it replacing undesirable business space in the park with desirable business space in the park and a charitable organization becomes the main beneficiary.

That is a terrible way to look at it.

First off, Brant is capitalizing on a charitable organization's issue.

Second off, there is no reason for Brant to be in the park.

They're expanding the building that was grandfathered in. "The same footprint" is just ridiculous. By this logic some business should just buy The Willow and build a tower there.

There is nothing stopping the CNIB from replacing their building themselves. And there certainly is policy mechanisms available to prevent the CNIB from leasing out excess space.

The justification for allowing two private businesses in the park is absurd.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by StealthGirl

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchew...es-for-regina-in-fill-builders-1.3746500

I don't get why they are delaying implementation. Seems like an election tactic. Don't want to hamper anyone's ability to get re-elected. I don't think that infill should pay the same as they do in new areas where there is no infrastructure, but they should have to pay something.

They're delaying it because it's a dumb idea that is predicated on the false equivalency between greenfield development and infill projects.

The vast majority of infill development already requires payment for additional infrastructure costs. If you buy and subdivide a residential lot you pay to have sewer and water hooked up. Property taxes then increase which help pay for the roads etc that are already there.

If you look at a development like Edward St (now abandoned for the time being) they are footing 100% of the bill for the construction of their infrastructure and a new lift station which benefits the whole neighbourhood. Additional property taxes will also pay for roads, schools, etc. There is no reason to levy a development fee when they are using existing infrastructure and paying for infrastructure upgrades already.

[UrbanClimate]

A few photos of the landscaping around the new U of R residence towers, from yesterday.















New entrance to Luther College:


Photo credit: UrbanClimate

[thefourthtower]

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news...monton-arena-while-pondering-calgarynext

Green with envy? Councillor eyes Edmonton arena while pondering CalgaryNEXT


Talking about Regina

[Festivus]

Originally Posted by UrbanClimate

A few photos of the landscaping around the new U of R residence towers, from yesterday.

These don't appear to be working. Are they privately hosted? Maybe try just hosting them on imgur.

[Dan0myte]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

That is a terrible way to look at it.

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

First off, Brant is capitalizing on a charitable organization's issue.

Very true. They saw an opportunity and took it.

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

Second off, there is no reason for Brant to be in the park.

There's no reason for CNIB to be in the park either. Yet, there they are.

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

They're expanding the building that was grandfathered in. "The same footprint" is just ridiculous. By this logic some business should just buy The Willow and build a tower there.

That's not even close to the same logic. Nice try though.

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

There is nothing stopping the CNIB from replacing their building themselves

Sure there is: Money. They don't have any and no one is stepping forward to give them any. Believe me, they would LOVE to replace the building themselves and configure it for their exact needs and not have to deal with a tennant but where are they supposed to get the money from?

[Dan0myte]

Remember that a couple years back CNIB contracted Number Ten architecture to design them a new building. One which they would solely occupy and own.

http://www.numberten.com/about/our-news/185-regina-cnib

They hired a new employee at that point as well who's sole purpose was to work with businesses and government to try and raise the funds necessary to build this new building. None of that panned out, and now they're in the situation they're in.

[Festivus]

Originally Posted by Dan0myte

That's not even close to the same logic. Nice try though.

I think it is. Imagine if the Willow was doing poorly and needed help building a new structure. Along comes Harvard and says, "we'll build a new 3-storey office building there, and the ground floor will contain the Willow as a restaurant, beside the lobby." It's the same thing that is happening now.

If the CNIB can't afford to replace their building as a sole-tenant (or without new arts/government/non-profit tenants to help them), then the building should simply not be replaced. It was only allowed to stay because it existed before the park did, but the park would not have allowed it to be built today, likely, and especially not with a corporate partner.

I too fear what Harvard has in mind for the park if they are okay with this development being outside of existing downtown vacant rental space.

[UrbanClimate]

I'll try re-posting these (previous post seemed to work):

[Dan0myte]

Originally Posted by Festivus

I think it is. Imagine if the Willow was doing poorly and needed help building a new structure. Along comes Harvard and says, "we'll build a new 3-storey office building there, and the ground floor will contain the Willow as a restaurant, beside the lobby." It's the same thing that is happening now.

Sure, that's a valid point but it's still not the same logic. The CNIB building a 2-story commercial office building. It's planned replacement is a 3-story commercial office building. The building at 3000 Wascana Drive is a combined restaurant/warehouse space. If it were to be replaced by a commercial office tower it's a completely different purpose for the property, even if the office building were to include restaurant space.

As I said before, I'm 100% on board with CNIB replacing the building themselves and occupying it themselves. That's clearly the better option here. I just don't see economically how that's possible with no funding and no donors.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by Dan0myte

Sure, that's a valid point but it's still not the same logic. The CNIB building a 2-story commercial office building. It's planned replacement is a 3-story commercial office building. The building at 3000 Wascana Drive is a combined restaurant/warehouse space. If it were to be replaced by a commercial office tower it's a completely different purpose for the property, even if the office building were to include restaurant space.

A grandfathered charity is not the same use as a large commercial manufacturing and sales company HQ.

Originally Posted by Dan0myte

As I said before, I'm 100% on board with CNIB replacing the building themselves and occupying it themselves. That's clearly the better option here. I just don't see economically how that's possible with no funding and no donors.

Again, that in no way demonstrates that Brandt should be in the park. If we change the rules every time a charity has trouble getting funding, what's the point?

[thefourthtower]

There is nothing wrong at all that Brant is building a new head quarters in the park , are they taking over new land the question is no , they are replacing a ageing building that looks horrible with something that absolutely beautiful and its all for a good cause good for them things are different than 100 years ago get over it

[jigglysquishy]

Originally Posted by thefourthtower

There is nothing wrong at all that Brant is building a new head quarters in the park , are they taking over new land the question is no , they are replacing a ageing building that looks horrible with something that absolutely beautiful and its all for a good cause good for them things are different than 100 years ago get over it

What good cause? Saying no to Brandt will likely force them downtown.

And CNIB is moving downtown this month anyways so it's demolishing an abandoned building for new park space.